Re: so what? Re: Debian development modem
Rev. Joseph Carter <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> This is an interesting way to do it. I have a better idea though. =>
> Urgency in the control file. Urgency of most packages is low. These
> packages can be considered unstable perhaps a month. If no "release
> critical" bugs are outstanding on this version of the package (not
> subversion) it can be moved to stable. So my_package 1.4.2-1 has a grave or
> critical bug in it. Two weeks later, 1.4.2-2 fixes it. In another 2 weeks,
> it could go stable.. There might need to be some exceptions, but usually
> the places exceptions are needed shouldn't be low urgency, hm?
In what way would urgency be different from priority?
> The BIGGEST issue about any idea of the sort starting with mine, including
> yours, and several others like it is this: Can stable actually be kept
> stable in a system like this or would compromises cause stability to go
> down? I think probably we could do it since hopefully the above suggestions
> I made as for what it would take to get a package in to stable faster would
> be policy. Thoughts anyone?
I think that if we decided we cared we'd do a lot about it.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org